Another Muslim Weds Sikh In Gurdwara

[Mehtab Singh]

What about it? Who considers Narakdharis as Sikhs?

[geo]

What about it? Who considers Narakdharis as Sikhs?

thats just defeated your argument there brother. ISIS (who are sunni muslims) dont believe that shia's are muslims. they call them things like "persian dogs"

surely killing people is killing people - it doesnt matter if it is a muslim killing an muslim or a sikh killing a sikh or any combination in between.

[Singh559]

thats just defeated your argument there brother. ISIS (who are sunni muslims) dont believe that shia's are muslims. they call them things like "persian dogs"

surely killing people is killing people - it doesnt matter if it is a muslim killing an muslim or a sikh killing a sikh or any combination in between.

The difference is according to Sikh principles and the definition of a Sikh, narakdharis are not Sikhs. On top of this, they do not believe in Guru Granth Sahib Ji to be their Guru, they openly desecrate it. That comparison shows the center of the problem in your post(s) - lack of knowledge in the subject you're talking about.

If someone in the Islamic world did that there would be chaos even among 'moderates'. Within the Sikh panth there is much difference in jathas and practicing of rehit, but the center foundation and beliefs are same at the core. There is tolerance for difference and approaches, but if someone doesn't consider Guru Granth Sahib Ji their Guru, they are welcome to practice their own religion without the label of being a Sikh.

In Sikh history Sikh Panth has never been responsible or instigators of any sort of mob mentality genocide, I am not sure you can say the same.

[geo]

The difference is according to Sikh principles and the definition of a Sikh, narakdharis are not Sikhs. On top of this, they do not believe in Guru Granth Sahib Ji to be their Guru, they openly desecrate it. That comparison shows the center of the problem in your post(s) - lack of knowledge in the subject you're talking about.

If someone in the Islamic world did that there would be chaos even among 'moderates'. Within the Sikh panth there is much difference in jathas and practicing of rehit, but the center foundation and beliefs are same at the core. There is tolerance for difference and approaches, but if someone doesn't consider Guru Granth Sahib Ji their Guru, they are welcome to practice their own religion without the label of being a Sikh.

In Sikh history Sikh Panth has never been responsible or instigators of any sort of mob mentality genocide, I am not sure you can say the same.

youre "not sure if i can say the same" about what?

all religions would say the same about themselves, they would say our religion does not condone this sort of thing or that sort of thing. it is the people themselves who cause the problems.

as far as i can tell from the few that i know - nirankaris regard themselves as sikhs.

it wouldnt take much for a slightly different interpretation of sikhism to become a following and then there would be likely clashes between the different groups. there have already been killings regarding issues such as chairs in langar hall

[Singh559]

youre "not sure if i can say the same" about what?

all religions would say the same about themselves, they would say our religion does not condone this sort of thing or that sort of thing. it is the people themselves who cause the problems.

as far as i can tell from the few that i know - nirankaris regard themselves as sikhs.

it wouldnt take much for a slightly different interpretation of sikhism to become a following and then there would be likely clashes between the different groups. there have already been killings regarding issues such as chairs in langar hall

Quit using these words (they, all religions, themselves) quite frankly it is really irritating and shows that you are afraid to talk like a man in a straightforward manner. Most people reading your posts are just laughing in their head because they've seen a bunch of people use the same repetitive vague language as your own to try to mask your agenda and where you're coming from.

Comparing tribal fighting over money in committees and maybe one or two murders to jihad and Islam fueled genocide, rape, pillaging of MILLIONS (countless) people in history?

Canttellifsrs

[geo]

Quit using these words (they, all religions, themselves) quite frankly it is really irritating and shows that you are afraid to talk like a man in a straightforward manner. Most people reading your posts are just laughing in their head because they've seen a bunch of people use the same repetitive vague language as your own to try to mask your agenda and where you're coming from.

Comparing tribal fighting over money in committees and maybe one or two murders to jihad and Islam fueled genocide, rape, pillaging of MILLIONS (countless) people in history?

Canttellifsrs

why have i to stop using these words? : they, all religions, themselves

im not afraid to talk like a man and im not afraid to talk in a straightforward manner. sometimes tho words have to be chosen carefully because of the censorship on this forum by the mods but other than that i try to speak as freely as i can.

as ive said before, the religion of the killer doesnt nessessarily make it a religious crime. people with no religion kill as well. some people want lots of power/wealth/fame and they want to destroy everything in their path. they justify their acts by whatever methods they can, religion/race/fear/caste/genetics. christians have did it, hindus have did it, muslims have did it. i would guess that aboriginal people have did it to other aboriginal people as well. it was not because of their religion it was in spite of their religion.

[Jonny101]

Quit using these words (they, all religions, themselves) quite frankly it is really irritating and shows that you are afraid to talk like a man in a straightforward manner. Most people reading your posts are just laughing in their head because they've seen a bunch of people use the same repetitive vague language as your own to try to mask your agenda and where you're coming from.

Comparing tribal fighting over money in committees and maybe one or two murders to jihad and Islam fueled genocide, rape, pillaging of MILLIONS (countless) people in history?

Canttellifsrs

He uses vague language and tries to understand something by comparing it to things that are entirely different and unrelated.

[geo]

He uses vague language and tries to understand something by comparing it to things that are entirely different and unrelated.

ok let me use more direct language: if there were massively more sikhs worldwide then at sometime or another there would be splits into different factions/groups/sects, this would lead to tensions which could easily lead to warfare and killings. christians fought each other and others and so did muslims and probably hindus too. no people are totally out with the risk of war breaking out amongst their population. it is ridiculous to claim one religion is better than an other, with regard to some aspect, because it is always YOUR religion that is better wether you are a muslim/christian/sikh/hindu.

[Jonny101]

ok let me use more direct language: if there were massively more sikhs worldwide then at sometime or another there would be splits into different factions/groups/sects, this would lead to tensions which could easily lead to warfare and killings. christians fought each other and others and so did muslims and probably hindus too. no people are totally out with the risk of war breaking out amongst their population. it is ridiculous to claim one religion is better than an other, with regard to some aspect, because it is always YOUR religion that is better wether you are a muslim/christian/sikh/hindu.

Historically you post holds no ground. When Islam was new and in it's early stages and not so numerous, they had massive civil wars, for example the battle of the camel between Khalifa Ali and Ayesha which resulted in a huge loss of human life. Sikhs never had such comparable civil war. Now stop comparing apples with oranges.

[Mehtab Singh]

thats just defeated your argument there brother. ISIS (who are sunni muslims) dont believe that shia's are muslims. they call them things like "persian dogs"

surely killing people is killing people - it doesnt matter if it is a muslim killing an muslim or a sikh killing a sikh or any combination in between.

The yoyo guy asked about clashes, not killings.

if there were massively more sikhs worldwide then at sometime or another there would be splits into different factions/groups/sects, this would lead to tensions which could easily lead to warfare and killings.

No, and I already stated why.