Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?

[YOYO29]

32 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

a person making up his own 'religion' cult  is not a sikh or a muslim or anything  he is a fool  looking for other fools to fleece

nobody got time to study deeply religion and also it different sects.That is why if person claims to be a muslim whether he is Ahmadi he would be considered as Muslim by outside world.Same goes if a nirankari or dera sacha sauda follower claims to be a sikh despite having different views from mainstream Sikhs he would be treated as such by outsiders.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

nobody got time to study deeply religion and also it different sects.That is why if person claims to be a muslim whether he is Ahmadi he would be considered as Muslim by outside world.Same goes if a nirankari or dera sacha sauda follower claims to be a sikh despite having different views from mainstream Sikhs he would be treated as such by outsiders.

Ahmadis are very different from Muslims. They follow Mirza Ahmed, while Muslims, (most of them), follow Prophet Muhammad, as well as his line of succession, (Ali or Abu Bakkar).

Sikhs believe in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib alone.

[YOYO29]

32 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Ahmadis are very different from Muslims.

Ofcourse they are;in their belifs. But they call themselves as Muslims and world accepts that.For example in India Muslims tried to have Ahmadis to be considered outside of Islam but Indian govt refused that.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

15 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

Ofcourse they are;in their belifs. But they call themselves as Muslims and world accepts that.For example in India Muslims tried to have Ahmadis to be considered outside of Islam but Indian govt refused that.

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. The Indian government even claims that Sikhs, (as well as Buddhists), are Hindu, when they aren't. (Though they also claim Jainism as well, but they've already been completely absorbed),

[YOYO29]

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true.

True but i'm talking about general perception which outside world has towards religion.

[YOYO29]

@proactive Since you have been using rape card constantly.Let me present you another picture of story.This report is from Indonesia where buddhsits inmates raped Rohangya Muslim women and later on they were killed by Muslim inmates.
http://www.dvb.no/news/indonesian-prison-riot-sparked-by-rape-of-rohingya-inmates/27532

[YOYO29]

19 hours ago, chatanga said:

The Rohinhgyas are getting a lot of international aid, and have been helped by golbal Muslim community for the last 2 or 3 years at least. Where did the Rohingyas get the weapons to attack over 30 police posts and other army posts to start this current phase of violence?

When you push someone against the wall he is definitely gonna fight back.Late King Abdullah gave 50 million us dollars for rohangya aid in 2012.May be some Arab dude with rich pockets helped them get weapons to defend themselves.There was an article in Hindustan times on Pakistan based militant groups helping incite violence Myanmar but i would not take it seriously.Indians have Pakistani phobia.They see Pakistani hand behind every sh!t that goes wrong in India or in world.I would not be surprised if tomorrow Indian media claims that Pakistan is behind Irma hurricane lol

[proactive]

9 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

There was already a sikh plan to eradicate muslims from east Punjab if partition plan was not according to their satisfaction.They would have done the same regardless of what happend in West Punjab.

We are talking about the rape and abduction of Muslim women. You are right the Sikhs having been backed into a corner and seeing  that their best lands and religious shrines were going to Pakistan they resorted to violence to drive out the Muslims. The Muslims would still have been driven out because the Muslims did the same to the Sikhs in West Punjab. But if there had been no rape and abduction during the Rawalpindi massacres in March 1947, they would have been no rape and abduction of Muslim women in East Punjab after August 1947. 

[proactive]

7 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

This integration stuff is really sticky.Don't generalize entire population.Apart from Wahhabis no muslim pose threat to western culture. Wait till same right winger start talking about Sikh integrating into western society. How long do you think they are gonna wait till they start having problem with your Turbans,Kirpans ? all in the name of integration.

Multiculturalism was well entrenched in the west prior to 9/11. Sikhs did have issues in the 70s when they had to fight to wear turbans in the transport sector initially but the turban and kirpan were well accepted by the host communities. However, after 9/11 this has changed and Sikhs now face some harassment from airport security staff in some countries. 

I doubt if Islam and Muslims are removed from the west that the Sikhs will then be next. 

[proactive]

38 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

@proactive Since you have been using rape card constantly.Let me present you another picture of story.This report is from Indonesia where buddhsits inmates raped Rohangya Muslim women and later on they were killed by Muslim inmates.
http://www.dvb.no/news/indonesian-prison-riot-sparked-by-rape-of-rohingya-inmates/27532

I think you are missing my point. There are rapists in every religion and every community. I have admitted that Sikhs raped and abducted Muslim women in revenge for what was happening to Sikh women in West Punjab and what had happened in Rawalpindi in March 1947. BUT the point is that these Sikhs were going against the teachings of Sikhism whereas a Muslim raping a non-Muslim women can find easy justification in the teachings of Mohammed. Those Burmese Buddhists weren't following the Buddha when they raped the Rohingya women although I do find it hard to believe that Buddhists would rape Muslim women in a majority Muslim country and whilst being held in incarceration in a detention centre.