At this writing, little is known regarding the shooting yesterday at the Oak Creek Sikh Temple in which seven people died, including the shooter. We do know that police were called at about 10:15 AM. 
Upon arrival some police officers began immediately helping a wounded victim. At that point the officers were ambushed by the perpetrator, and one was shot multiple times. A second officer shot and killed the shooter. Of those killed, four were inside the temple; two, plus the shooter, were outside.
But what are the basic premises of the Sikh religion?
Basic to the system of panentheism, of which the Sikh religion is a part, is the belief that a divine exists, suffuses every element of nature, and extends beyond it in space and time. In panentheism, believers assert that God pervades the cosmos. “All is God.”
The Sikh religion, the fourth largest in the world, centered in India, is more specific. The origins of Sikhism are found in the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev who said that “Realization of Truth is higher than all else; higher still is truthful living.” Sikhs strive to achieve the qualities of a “saint-soldier.” A Sikh must have the courage to defend the rights of the wrongfully oppressed or persecuted, regardless of race, place of origin, creed, or gender.
In Sikhism, the Supreme Being is termed Vahiguru. The figure “1” signifies the universality of God, who is shapeless, timeless, and sightless. Before creation, Sikhs believe, nothing existed except God and “hukam” which is interpreted as God’s will, or order. And when God willed, the cosmos was created. Vahiguru then nurtured "enticement and attachment" to maya, or the human perception of reality.
Guru Nanak Dev said God is not wholly unknowable. He is omnipresent in all creation and visible to the spiritually awakened. Through meditation, Guru Nanak continued, comes communication between God and human beings. Readers may be interested to learn that Nanak taught that there are many worlds on which God has created life.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - aj
great article.
2 - Igor
Excellent article, thanks, John.
During the English occupation of India The Raj complained that (IIRC) the Sikhs were 10% of the population and 90% of the hanged. But that may be apocryphal. The point is, their opposition to injustice is strong.
3 - STM
Good piece John.
Here's my two cents' worth:
The bizarre thing about people like the shooter is that they don't know - or possibly don't have the wherewithal to care or investigate - about their own history when it comes to the history of others.
As an Indian national group of the old British Empire, Sikhs have long been integrated into virtually every facet of life in the Commonwealth nations and now of course in the US ... that is, the English-speaking nations, who all draw on the same common thread and a belief in personal freedom and equality and justice and democracy.
They are also regarded as exceptionally brave. They formed a part of the Indian Army, which was really the British Army of the East, and fought for freedom against tyranny on two continents and alongside the western allies - because they were PART of the western allies - for the entire duration of both world wars.
They suffered horrendous casualties in WWI both in Europe and in the battles against Germany's allies, the Ottomon Turks, in the middle-east, and the story was much the same in WWII. As part of the British 14th Army, Sikhs numbered heavily among the Indian soldiers who liberated Burma from the Japanese and they were involved in some of the most savage fighting of the war in the far east, including the meat-grinder battles around Imphal and Kohima during which they literally crushed Japanese will to keep fighting.
They also fought in the middle east and Italy during WWII against the Germans and Italians, including at some landmark allied victories, including El Alamein, which led to the total collapse of the Nazis and the fascist Italians in North Africa.
It is no stretch to say that many Sikhs freely gave their lives to keep Americans free - and every bit as much as Americans' fellow countrymen did, since the cause was the same and so was the hateful ideology of the very same enemy.
For its part in all that, the Sikh Regiment and Sikhs serving with others were among the most decorated of the old Indian Army regiments prior to 1948.
They were also highly active in the 19th century in fighting the Raj in India, but the clever British, recognising their martial qualities, thought it might be a far better idea to let bygones be bygones and have them on the same side.
Today, in Britain, it's a common sight to see British-born Sikh police officers in dark blue turbans with the police badge placed on the front - a nod by the British to religious sensitivities but neverthless the most obvious sign that while Sikh communities keep largely to themselves socially and marry amongst themselves, they are also highly integrated into British society, including the playing of sport - mainly cricket, at which many of them excel. One of India's top players, Harbhajan Singh, is known throughout the international cricket community as "The Turbanator" for his lethal bowling prowess.
In Australia, a Sikh community on the mid-north coast of New South Wales near Coffs Harbour, north of Sydney, has been there for a century, and is not only wholly integrated into the life of the region, but also highly regarded for the hard work of its members and their hugely successful contribution over many years to civic and business and community life as a whole in one of the most stable and wealthy of the English-speaking modern democracies.
They own and operate many of the world's most profitable banana plantations in the area, and it's great to hear people wearing Sikh turbans speaking with broad Aussie accents - and rooting for Australia, not India, when the two nations play each other at cricket.
I remember soon after 9/11, some idiot murdered a Sikh in the US because he was wearing a turban, and of course, anyone who wears a turban has to be a muslim, and therefore agin' us, right?
I suspect there might be a bit of that ignorance playing out here.
While there are fundamentalists of every religion causing strife (and yes, there are fundamentalist Sikhs), it's hard to imagine that these people had done anything wrong - except to look different - as they went about their quiet, respectful worship in a place they thought might have offered them some respite from similar hate killings they've experienced in their own country.
And therein lies the problem here.
It's the looking different bit ...
Angry white extremists please note: the wearing of a turban isn't indicative of anything, really. It's not much different to a Christian wearing a crucifix.
And it's particularly bizarre to target a people who have loyally stood at the side of the US and its people for 100 years, standing up against the very same hateful and tyrannical ideologies, and have paid heavily for that commitment in blood.
Now they've paid with a bit more and needlessly, and of the innocents, this time.
Nothing will ease the pain of this community in their chosen home.
But let's hope that other idiots contemplating such horrors do their homework first, and in doing so realise the folly of carrying that much hate and putting it to foul use, against whatever national or race group doing them no harm which they might choose to target.
4 - John Lake
"In Des Moines on Tuesday, Romney mispronounced the word ‘‘Sikh’’ (seek) as ‘‘sheik’’ (sheek), a word with an altogether different meaning. A sheik (sheek) is an Arab leader. Sikhs (seeks) trace their religion to South Asia."
5 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
While I deplore what's happened to the Sikhs - I remember one being murdered here in Seattle not long after 9/11 by a real red-blooded "American" out to "defend the homeland from the Muslims" - I cannot fault Romney (who I really don't like) for his mispronunciation. It wasn't until the current tragedy that I myself knew the proper pronunciation - I'd been pronouncing it as "sickh".
6 - Cindy
Glenn, do you really think it is the same thing? Romney is running for an office that has implications in the lives of everyone on the planet. If you were doing so, wouldn't you hold yourself to a higher standard?
(Marginalization is part of what allows the world to carry on in its pathology. Romney demonstrates that he is a product of and identifies solely with the dominating culture and likely not able to see its impact on marginalized cultures. It makes him a tool. A tool who wants to have the greatest say possible about how the world effects marginalized cultures worldwide. That is an indictment of him as a dangerous man in my book. So, in my book, his is not at all comparable to your own unfamiliarity, which does not worry me in the least.)
7 - Cindy
Great article, John. We need more like this, imo.
8 - Singh
I'd like to say canabis is NOT allowed in meditation there are some "Sikhs" who do yet we do not recognize that as part of our religion. The only time drugs are allowed are for medical purposes. I'd like to add that Sikhs have been subject to injustice by the Indian Government as well as they are, AS WE SPEAK, making drugs available to Sikh youth to pretty much mess with the current generation of Sikhs.They have also supported a holocaust of Sikhs in 1984. In three days there were over 100,000 reported deaths, which means there are clearly much more. They fail to recognize it, yet it has happened. Sikhs have defended India for hundreds of years, and more Sikhs lost their lives in the fight for India's independence than any other group in India. They defended woman's rights, minorities rights, and even Hindus and Muslims for hundreds of years, and Sikhs came up with many of the principles in the Declaration of Independence hundreds of years before our fore fathers did. Overall, Sikhs are just as American as we are. Nicely written article though....
9 - John Lake
I suspect the source for the cannabis matter was quite outdated. Perhaps several decades ago that use was more tolerated. Or there is the chance that that author was just a tad hostile. I was going to eliminate that reference, but by the time I made that decision, the article was already locked down by the editors at BC
10 - Igor
Apparently this murderer Page was a white supremacist.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Igor -
Yes, but whatever we do, we Must Not Suggest that it was right-wing terrorism in any way - that would be politically incorrect, you know.
12 - Igor
There's no reason to treat radical rightists with kid gloves, they never hesitate to abuse everybody else.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
I was being facetious. Personally, I'd love to see the Rabid Right held to the same standard they try to hold everyone else to.
14 - STM
How you pronounce Sikh probably isn't that much of an issue, to be honest.
It's the ignorance around who they are and what they represent that is the issue.
It must be galling to Sikhs themselves - whose principles and beliefs dovetail perfectly with ours because they are ours - to find themselves targeted by idiots in the US who know little about anything beyond their own borders and who think because Sikhs wear turbans, they must be muslims ... and therefore "need killin'."
The sad part about that train of thought is that most muslims except the islamofascists who want to kill us don't "need killin" either.
Like I say, Sikhs are totally integrated into the life and community of most Commonwealth nations - that is, the English-speaking nations apart from the US.
And they are generally upholders of the same democratic values of religious tolerance and democracy and freedom that the rest of us believe in.
In other words, they're on our side.
Which in my book makes 'em good guys.
15 - John Lake
I wonder,would it be a good idea for the American school system to devote additional effort to teach the elimination of blind prejudice?
16 - Igor
I've known a number of Sikhs over the last 50 years and always found them to be admirable. I also notice that in the British troops Sikhs are the only ones allowed to wear their turban instead of standard issue headgear.
17 - STM
And in the cops, Igor. You'll see plenty of British-born or naturalised Sikhs in the UK police forces, not just in the British armed forces.
They wear a police-issue turban.
No one baulks at it in the UK military, because the Sikhs were part of the British military in India for 200 years ... when they weren't fighting against the British.
Like I say, they suffered horrendous casualties in two world wars - fighting on our side against the Turks and Germans, then the Japanese AND the Nazis and fascists.
It's a terrible thing that many Americans in their patriotic fervour simply wouldn't identify that, or understand or know of (and only because they'd not have been taught) the sacrifice of the Sikhs against various lots of rather hateful ideology that have attempted to impose their evil will on everyone else in the century just gone.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Like the Gurkhas, the Sikhs have long been widely respected as a bunch of tough hombres. It's no coincidence that Conan Doyle chose them to be Jonathan Small's co-conspirators in The Sign of the Four. Probably something to do with the beards and the way the turban across the forehead makes them look as if they're permanently scowling. :-)
But they're decent, quiet, upstanding people who've integrated into British society perhaps better than any other ethno-religious group. If you follow English Premier League footie on the telly, you will notice a group of them sitting behind the dugout when Manchester United are playing at home, calmly looking on as Sir Alex has another one of his wig-outs. They've been season ticket holders at Old Trafford for years.
19 - Dr Dreadful
From the BBC comedy classic Goodness Gracious Me, here's more helpful information about Sikhs.
20 - John Lake
Sir Doyle, my favorite.
21 - Dr Dreadful
"Sir Arthur" is the correct style, John.
22 - STM
I was watching Fox and Friends a few years back and the tall blond guy was interviewing a British parliamentarian peer ... and calling him "Sir Smith", instead of "Sir John".
They weren't the actual names, but you get my drift.
So the tall blond guy was interviewing this British guy in London, on video link from New York, with the Houses of Parliament in the background, and to his credit, "Sir Smith" answered all the questions to the best of his ability without correcting the tall, blond Fox host, and importantly, without giving the American guy any clue that he'd got the name all wrong and thus saving him any embarrassment on worldwide TV.
A lovely, if small, piece of classic English diplomacy and stiff-upper-lip keeping in the tricky maintenence of their special relationship with their cousins across the pond.
Doc is right about the Sikhs ... they are tough hombres, which is why the British set up an entire regiment for them in the army.
They are also lovely and charming people ... and they'd only slit your throat if you were on the wrong side.
I know lots of them in Australia, especially with the large, century old Sikh community on the mid-north coast of New South Wales.
A lot of their kids move to the big smoke from the country to work in Sydney r Brisbane.
My fave was a guy named Tommy, the owner of a curry joint up the road from my old place, who always managed to throw in something delicious for free AND give us a discount because we were regular customers.
Loyalty counts for everything.
23 - STM
Americans have much to learn about many of their English-speaking cousins from across the globe. Yes, even many Indian Sikhs speak English as a first language.
24 - STM
Here's a good one following on Doc's theme:
The Asian Top Gear sketch from BBC's Goodness Gracious Me
25 - Dr Dreadful
@ #22:
Shall we confuse our Seppo friends further by pointing out that if a man is a peer, rather than a knight, he is referred to by his last name rather than his first?
As an example, older Americans like John may remember Lord Carrington, who was Mrs Thatcher's foreign secretary at the time of the Falklands War and later became Secretary-General of NATO.