Talk:Islam and Sikhism

Vandalism by Ajjay

There is no mention of the bloodshed b/w the Islamic rulers and all the Gurus. Even the battles are watered down to give the impression to the reader that the Mughals and Guru Gobind were parts of the same football team.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji was involved in roughly 12 battles in his lifetimes: 2 against the Mughal Rulers (moslem rulers) and 10 against the Raja Hills (Hindu Rulers). The Sikh struggle has been and always be against tyrants or opposers of freeman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.123.12 (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention that Sikhs cannot consume Halal food

Secondly, you mistake Muslims for Sufis, its like mistaking Buddhists for Sikhs just because both faith are dharmic in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about relationship and influences and not contradictions. Kindly stay inline with topic. There exist seperate articles for wars between Sikhs and mughals (not muslims).ThanksAjjay (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article on Sufism before coming to an erroneous conclusion about the relationship between Islam and Sufism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.240.159 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me where I have mentioned Mughals anywhere in this article ??

reply to above unsigned comment

"There is no mention of the bloodshed b/w the Islamic rulers and all the Gurus.

Even the battles are watered down to give the impression to the reader that the Mughals and Guru Gobind were parts of the same football team".

Vandalism by user: Mahaakaal

Kabir was not a muslim, Kabir and the subsequent Gurus are not considered Prophets, please click on Kabir and learn about him

Actually Kabir was the son of a Muslim weaver.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bhai Mardana

Did Bhai Mardana leave Islam and convert to Sikhism, or Did he remain a lfelong Muslim? I would just like to have that clarified. Joyson Noel (talk)

Good question, it is wrong to use the term Muslim (to define) a follower of dharmic religions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.218 (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please prove reincarnation & karma......

Moksha, Maya, Meditation, etc were invented by "all the Gurus" - sorry but anyone with a bacic knowledge of Theology will tell you that all the Gurus couldn't have invented all these belief systems at once ?? And I never mentioned the Vedas - YOU DID.

There was no concept of Judaism or Kosher in Sikh understanding

It is wrong to assume that 'Halal' also means 'Kosher' and to confuse the two together when only Halal was prohibited by the 10th Guru when he faced confrontation with Islamic forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.218 (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The actual prohibition is on Kuttha which mean ritual sacrificed. Halal and Kosher and ritually sacrificed.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why not include Hindu ritual salughter ie Jhatkah ?

Jhatkah is not a Hindu specific ritual slaughter, it is simply a way to cut animal's neck in a fraction of second so that animal doesnt suffer pain at all or if it still suffers, then it should be for a fraction of second only. Atleast in Sikhism, no rituals are performed during jhatka slaughter.--Beetle CT (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mardana was a Sufi not a Muslim

Sources are biased insisting a follower of Nanak can have dual religious identity, a muslim cannot be follower of Nanak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.218 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources which could solve this issue? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Insult to Islam & Muslims

Re: Mardana. It is a blatant insult to Islam & Muslims to suggest that someone who classes himself as a Mulsim ie the follower of Mohammed PBUH is also a follower of an Indian Guru. This is blatant Sikh propaganda

As Mohammand can not be called a middle eastern Guru (prophet), similarly Nanak can not be called an Indian Guru (Prophet). Both of them have exactly same standing in their respective religions and the followers of both of these religions are scattered around the whole world. Islam is as respectful religion as Sikhism, Christianity or Hinduism etc, so no one is insulting Islam here. If Mardana choose to follow a different Prophet (Nanak) in addition to the previous one (Mohammand) then it has become history which is duly documented.

If you want to do further study on religious harmony which existed at the time of (Prophet) Nanak, then please see:

1 Gurudwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur: Religious harmony, peace and co-existence. His Grave and Samadhi exist in the premises of this Gurudwara in Pakistan.

2 Guru Nanak's Grave (where his muslim followers burried half of his shawl), It also mean that muslims were his followers as well.

3 Guru Nanak's Samadhi (where his Non-Muslim followers cremated the remaining half of his shawl). --Beetle CT (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Beetle CT aka Ajjay aka Shalimer, I'd appreciate less sermons from you - the FACT is that many Muslims feel insult that you call a follower of Sikhism as a Muslim. He was not and could not by definition be a Muslim if he follows your faith.

Also, I think you need an education in Islam - Mohammed was a Middle Eastern Prophet from Arabia and Nanak was an Indian Guru, so please cut the nonsense as well the insults.

Do you agree that Sikhism is a cheaper version of Islam OR that they are both distinct and separate faiths ?

By the way I'd sort your split personality disorder (Dual ID's etc)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you have a specific accusation to make, examine the process for reporting sockpuppetry.

In regards to the second issue, do you have sources which could solve this issue? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats something to either need to discuss with the senior admins or sockpuppetry (Beetle CT aka Ajjay aka Shalimer) and this user in question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.37 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, the information about Mardana and the rest in this article is fully documented and attached as references. Please do not mix duly documented history with insult and/or love of/with specific religion. My this advice in this matter is not motivated/biased, you can check my edit history and the articles which I have written/created so far. Your religion is very respectful religion. But here we are talking about documented history about differences and similarities of these two great religions. There could be few things which you/I might not like but history is history. Lets save it, otherwise murdering history will be similar to destroying great Budha statues in Bamiyan only because some religious extremists could not tolerate them in a Muslim country .--Singh6 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Singh6. History is very important and if we alter it because the sentiments of one person (group) are hurt, this could set a dangerous precedence. The information about Mardana is correct. --Sikh-history (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit this discussion page

Now, along the issues of issues of :-

1. Multiple user ID's (Beetle CT, Ajjay, Shalimer) 2. Insults to Muslims 3. Unwarranted edits to this talk page

I'm not talking about the Bamayan Statues, I'm talking about what constitutes a definition of a Muslim, and your Mardana guy was no Muslim - you simply have not been able to grasp the difference between Sikhsim, Sufism, and Islam.

A follower of Islam DOES NOT follow a Sikh Guru or any other Guru and please dont add sermons aimed at Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.37 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I beleive that some other user has successfully challenged your idiology and theory. You have separated his reply and started a new section. Simply! In order to help you understand the truth, I have tried to get liberty to copy that respected user's reply and I am pasting it over here.:

1 Gurudwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur: Religious harmony, peace and co-existence. His Grave and Samadhi exist in the premises of this Gurudwara in Pakistan.

2 Guru Nanak's Grave (where his muslim followers burried half of his shawl), It also mean that muslims were his followers as well.

3 Guru Nanak's Samadhi (where his Non-Muslim followers cremated the remaining half of his shawl).

So tell me, what is the meaning of above references/pictures. ? In the history of great religion of Islam, there were some Mogul Kings who destroyed other's religion's religious places and forcibally converted millions of non-muslims into islam by imposing jijia and other means AND there were also other great muslims who constructed/laid foundation stones of other's religious places (e.g. Golden Temple ) and still preached islam in en extremely beautiful way that people loved to convert to Islam with their own wish. Extremism and love was always there. But again! History is History. Lets protect it!!!! --Singh6 (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Singh here. We're not trying to insult any religion here, we're just presenting what happened. It doesn't matter what religion you are, all belief systems, Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, there will all be something that people from each of these religions won't like on Wikipedia, because it goes against their belief or they just plain disagree with it. Guess what, on this page, Hindus, Sikhs, Islamic, and other faiths have worked on this page. You can accuse me and Singh of being meatpuppets, in fact, with us two and all the other people you accused of being meatpuppets, all we have in common is that we're trying to improve wikipedia and that we're all desis. And like Singh said, if you start deleting causing and edit war, we're going to the administrators. P.S, oh yeah, all of us 'meatpuppets' can speak English and possibly a little bit of one language from India. Deavenger (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Singh6 here 100%. The idea that Muslims followed Hindu's or others is not new. Even the great Emperor Akhbar advocate the religion of Din'il ilahi as a compromise to Hinduism and Islam.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Beetle CT has had one warning but he deleted it

So, I put it back - Admins need to do a check on this user who has by now 4 user id's - see above notes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.37 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I'm requesting a cooldown period and a period to discuss on the talk page. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, I've been watching the page for the last couple of days, and there seems to be a lot of edit warring between User:90.196.3.37 and User: Beetle CT. So, let's discuss this in an orderly manner, no Personal attacks, be civil, and please, remember to sign your comments using four of ~. Let's get a consensus before adding or deleting any info. Let's FULLY discuss this issue before making any more changes to the page. I'll be happy if we wouldn't need to bring a Admin to try to fix this page or lock this page. Deavenger (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note User:90.196.3.37 has been making POV edits which I have taken as good faith to many Sikh articles.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that. Personally, I agreed with Beetle CT and Singh6 when they were reverting the IPs edits, as I think that the IP was deleting valuable information for this article. But when I made this discussion topic, I was hoping that we could bring it to an end without continuous edit warring. But since the IP is gone, I don't think we have to worry about it for now.Deavenger (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am merely a reader of Wiki and I really appreciate your/other_editors efforts to provide such valuable information on this free tool on the web. But, I had to intervene in this specific matter when I noticed such vandalism of your efforts/references. I would really appreciate if this IP could provide extra references/information which could help us to understand these topics better.Irek Biernat (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP is gone. And the other discussions, he hasn't provided any evidence besides calling it Sikh Propaganda. Deavenger (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, he's back. Deavenger (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Constant Insults to Islam

& multiple user ID's==

I think the senior administrators need to look at two things:

1. Why the THIS DISCUSSION PAGE page has been edited (against wiki rules) 2. The multiple user ids as discussed above

Both the above are good indicators of propelled propaganda

I think the addition of the comments by 117.96.174.218 is balanced from a Sikh point and not propagandist as some of the other inputs

Sikhs eat beef?

I want to discuss, why this article mentions that Sikhs eat beef? I have lived in Punjab all my life and most of my friends are Sikhs. None of them eat beef. I have never heard it being eaten by Sikhs anywhere in Punjab.

Are we talking about Sikhs in some other state or country?

Hi. I'm not Sikh, but from what I understand, they can eat meat or be vegetarian. So I think that Sikhs can eat beef if they want, or be vegetarian, or not eat beef. So in Punjab, they might not eat beef, while in other parts of India or the world, they might eat beef. Deavenger (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism does not prohibit Sikhs from eating Beef. The only prohibtion is about eating meat prepared in Kutha Halal way. The reason it is not being consumed by most of the Sikhs in Punjab is its non-availability. Punjab Govt does not allow slaughtering cows/buffalos so that it could maintain religious harmoney in the state, which I believe is totally justified. Succumbing to the Hindu community's pressure, Punjab Govt had even closed the only meat processing plant set up in Punjab. We, Sikhs who live out of India do eat available Non-Halal meat of Lamb, chicken, pork or Beef etc.--Singh6 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought in Punjab, both Sikhs and Hindus ate meat like Chicken, goat or mutton like they do in other parts of India like Kerala. Deavenger (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Hindus and Sikhs both communities do consume rest of the meat, i.e. Goat, Chicken and Lamb etc. The meat which is not available is "Beef" only.--Singh6 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining that.Deavenger (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that each person has his/her own definition of what his/her religion means. Sikhism has started and grown up as a Hindu sect initially. I believe it is up to the Sikhs to decide, whether they are any more part of Hinduism or not. And almost all of them consider Sikhism to be a separate religion.

In Punjab there is single culture between Punjabi Hindus Jats and Sikh Jats, single culture between Punjabi Hindu Rajputs and Sikh Rajputs, and single culture between Hindu Khatris and Sikh Khatris.

In these Punjabi cultures dogs, buffaloes, cows and horses were cared (traditionally) just like pet dogs and cats are in modern western society. (That is still very much prevalent in Punjab.)

In Punjabi culture you won't eat your dog, or your buffalo, or your horse or your cow.

Now, cows are considered sacred by Hindus, that's where the confusion starts.

Please do not confuse these two. Not eating an animal you raised like pet, or not eating an animal because it is sacred in your religion.

Sikhs don't consider cows to be sacred neither they consider dogs or buffaloes to be sacred.

Sikhs in Punjab and India won't eat beef because it is like eating your dog or horse (for people in western countries) (though I have heard, in some parts of China eating dog meat is OK). It is just a cultural tradition.

Some Sikhs in Western countries do eat beef. Some may be doing it because they are raised far from Punjabi culture and have overwhelming exposure to western culture. Some of them want to make a point that they are not a sect of Hindus, and the best way according to them is by eating beef. Which is their decision. It does not mean, you can say Sikhs eat beef.

I will give you an example, Sikhs don't consume tobacco. Now if some very small number of Sikhs start smoking tobacco, you cannot say Sikhs consume tobacco. It will be wrong to say that, just because you saw some Sikh smoking. --Nsdeonia (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For answer to your questions, Please refer to Prohibitions in Sikhism or Please see Sikh Code of Conduct released by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. --Singh6 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikhs eat Pork?

So is there any reason why only strict vegetarian food is served at a langar ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why vegetarian food is served in the langar is so that it could cater to both vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Acs4b ^{T C U} 15:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question to Deavanger

How old are you ? Have you passed any GCSE's

One, sign your posts. using four '~'. Two, wrong system. Three, you have already been warned by an Admin. Deavenger (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I take that as either you dont know your age and you dont have any GCSE's yet ?

Again. Sign your posts please. And you can check my profile. Lastly, you have been warned by an Admin. Deavenger (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

changes by Sikh 'History'

Muslims consider Hajj as a Pillar of Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj

So you need to revert your false edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be Civil when talking to people. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me ? All I said was Muslims consider Hajj as a Pillar of Islam which it is (not merely something 'crucual' ) as you changed it too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj - what not civil about that ???? huh ??? huh ???

Halal / haram

I noticed one of the points I mentioned before on discussion page got deleted (as usual)

So on the subject...

It is true that the vast majority of Sikhs live in India and that Sikhism originated somewhere in India.

The sentence re:On the menu-a-la-carte ie pork, lamb, eels caviar beef etc (wish-list), its beginning to look hilarious/ridiculous to any reader when really the crux of the article or discussion (in a comparitive context) should point out exactly and specifically that Muslims do NOT eat Sikh sanctified food and that Sikhs do NOT eat hahal food. This has been airbrushed. And maybe like you wandered why that would be ?

I also wanted to point out that a contributor in this discussion mentioned (above) that Sikhs do NOT eat beef which seems fairly consistent.

Since Sikhism began somewhere in India and most Sikhs live in India, and that the majority of Sikhs are rural Jats ie the caste or profession meaning farmers who tradionally use cattle for farming/ploughing dairy use, its never been customary in India to use beef products. Although this maybe untrue with non-Jat Sikhs like Chamars etc ?

So I was curious to know from a historical perspective when any official change occurred ? And why ?

-Well well where is eels and caviar etc (wish list) mentioned? It is hilarious! And since when Cavier became the food thought for the fundamentalist extremists like you. And Sikhism began in India but it was NOT started by the Jatts (the follower cannot dictate rules and they are a large ethnic group not the sole ethnic group and half of them are Muslims or Hindus by the way)! The founder was an accountant in Sultanpur Lodhi (that incidently points to his being literate and educated with a mind capable of reasoning) and one of the biggest land holding in the Indian Sub-continent still stands in his name (that incidently points to him being a very rich man and not a penny was acquired with looting by the way, it was a gift from the local King!) And the Rich was not thronged by just poor, illiterate and starving half naked robbors! There were rich and the famous too, among them were Muslims too (i know an extremist like you cannot swallow that a person can believe the way he wants) and many, if not all, of them ate beef!

As for the custom thing, beef eating was common in Vedic Times! Read some good history books and the Veds (or is that you were present there in the soul).

What is your point? Vedas also don't say you should worship Lord Rama or Lord Krishna or Vishnu or Shiv.

Does that prove that Hindus don't worship them?

Have you read Bible? Can you show me where it is written that pork eating is OK? I can show you places where it is written that you should not consume pork.

Does that prove that Christians don't consume Pork?

Everything in this world changes with time, religious beliefs change too.--Nsdeonia (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As for Sikhs and Hindus, they are mostly vegetarian, but not eternal vegetarians (thwy are allowed to make choices you know :) And in the scriptures you can find verses for whatever choice you want to make ! But your fundamentalist extremist mind won't understand all of this.

From where did you get that Hindus and Sikhs are mostly vegetarians?

Only a minority is vegetarian which try associate it with immorality, and then try to promote this belief that Indians are mostly vegetarians.--Nsdeonia (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And would you please make a confession about what religion you follow (and stick to it:)

I bet you wouldn't ask Kim Bolan that ?

Sounds like trying to having your cake and eat it ?

What religion I follow shouldn't matter to you young man - I don't treat it as a cub-scout badge, and as John Kerry once said, I certainly don't wear it on my Sleeve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what Kim Bolan and saner people would say about this edit of yours.[1] And what the respected Admins and various editors (including Muslims) will say about this edit of yours.[2] Your lies now are laid bare exposed for everyone to see old one.[3]

The Sockpuppet Has been traced to Dartford Kent. It may possibly belong to members of the fanatical Sikh group called the Akhan Kirtani Jatha. They tend to have an uncompromising attitude towards Sikhism and tend to push a POV. There are other uncompromising groups amongst Sikhs such as Guru Nana Niskam SewaK Jatha, and Raronwale. These groups follow a personality or Sant, rather than the Sikh tradition of consensus, hence again an uncompromising attitude. I find the attitude of such groups deeply fascinating.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This article insults Sikhism by calling Guru Nanak Dev ji a lair

Hello all, i just wanted to inform you, Ive seen a grave and offending statement made towards my religion. It says here that guru Nanak took ideas from both Hinduism and Islam to create a new religion. Or in some other places it says that Sikhism is a combination of Bhaktism and Sufism. Does this not deny the fact that Guru Ji received the divine sermon from god. Instead, it is indirectly saying that guru Nanak is a liar who created a man made religion. This is a very severe insult that Sikhs hear about every day but never understand what the insult means. Why, Sikh writers today are also using this rude and absolutely offending statement in their books about the Sikh religion. (coughcouchkhushwantsinghcoughcough.....sorry,something in my throat)In other words I am asking for the Sikh youth to wake up and defend their faiths honor. You should see the statements made to conceal blasphemous thoughts to make it sound a bit more 'liberal' and 'understandable'. cant you see these so called 'logical' sounding statements are made to slowly assimilate you into atheism! Shocking as it may seem, this statement is not only on Wikipedia but on school textbooks to! im a ex-student at the shri ram school and we were actually taught that Sikhism was a man made religion and Shri Guru Nanak simply copied it from Bhaktism and Sufism to create it. No, no divine audience with Waheguru, just mixing and blending religions. WAKE UP! SLOWLY THIS SIMPLE STATEMENT WILL DESTROY SIKH YOUTHS BELIEFS IN SIKHI! we must do something NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursikhzuber (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Khitan (circumcision)

Muslims perform Khitan (male circumcision) on male offspring. It is not mandated by the Qur'an, but is widely practiced. Sikhs do not perform circumcision. --Nsdeonia (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an as final revelation

I think the bereif description of this page should mention following.
One of the two foundations of Islam is that The Qur’an is the final revelation of God. Other being Muhammad as the messenger and prophet of God, the last and the greatest in a series of Prophets of Islam.
According to Islam Guru Granth Sahib, which was compiled after compilation of Qur'an can not be a revelation of God, as it will mean Qur'an is not the final one.
Similarly Sikh Gurus who came after Prophet Muhammad cannot be messengers (i.e. prophets) of God, as it will mean Muhammad was not the final prophet. --Nsdeonia (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, We can look into this information.--Singh6 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As this article is about comparison of Islam and Sikhism, this information should be included in this article.
If anybody thinks I have given wrong information, please discuss. Else I will add it to the page when it becomes editable. --Nsdeonia (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Page is already editable for established users, but please do not add anything yet. lets have a good break, we want to give this good chance to some editor to come up with sources who kept distorting this article. Thanks in advance.--Singh6 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the exact sentence which you want to be added?--Singh6 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nsdeonia,
There should be no problem in adding Islam's point-of-view about "anything/everything that comes after it" including Sikh philosophy. As such you can add, if you think, that Quran says its the final verdict and anything compiled after Quran, according to Quran, cannot be revelation of "God". However, I would request you to be specific add strong citations for this from, if possible, directly Quran. Similarly, we can work on adding what Sikh philosophy thinks about pre-existing philosophies, concept of "prophethood", and "final verdict" etc.

--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues in current version

1. A line on article says, "As such he freely borrowed religious terminology from the lexicons of both faiths, sometimes redefining them." How did the contributor of this line conclude that Guru Nanak's intention was "borrowing" and "redefining" or was his intention using the common language of people to better communicate with them? This is a huge claim and will need extraordinary evidence in support to substantiate that Nanak's intention was "borrowing .......sometimes redifining" as claimed by the current text.
2. Another line on the article says, "Additionally, the Sikh Gurus taught reincarnation and karma, which are standard Hindu beliefs". First,this language is not encyclopediac as it feels like some missionary is speaking to his potential converts. Second, its factually wrong as the Sikh Gurus did not teach reincarnation. This confused ideology exists in the minds of some people due to the misinterpretations while translastion hymns from Gurmukhi to English and the influence of vedantic surroundings on the mind of the translator. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Very poor English and definitions

Look at this sentence...

"Many Sikhs eat Non-halal meat including Beef, Pork, Lamb etc, although some Sikh communities are vegetarian"

Now that's the exception rather than the rule, as I'm aware your own temples serve veggie. Now, non-Halal (in Islamic terminolgy) is classified as Haram there is no such thing as non-halal from Islamic perspective, unless it is Kosher. Muslims do not eat Kosher or Sikh food.

Beef/pork/lamb/sausages/chicken whatever etc...etc.. can be simplified to 'meat' its not rocket science Satanoid (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid,

• who are you talking to when you started the new section above and said "...your own temples serve veggie"?
• why do you feel that Sikhs eating meat is an exception not the rule?
• What is "Sikh food" that you said above?
  Since this article is comparing Islam and Sikhism, it would be better to note that Sikhs are forbidden to eat ritualistically prepared meat like "Halal".
  Sidenote: Your language and tone unearths the inherent prejudice in your mind; this comment above from you is yet another example of it.

--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I could make the same criticisms about your sense of interpretation. But that doesn't answer or address the above issue ? Satanoid (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when don't Muslims eat Kosher food? Jewish food laws are more stringent in application, hence Jewish food is safe to eat for those who cannot locate halaal eats. the Ogress _smash! 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid, so now you are saying that I'm interpretting your comments above wrongly? I feel this is an attempt to circumvent discussion and hijack the topic. Why don't you make them clear by elaborating on the points that I raised on your comments above? Also, the Ogress has added another point to my points by asking - "Since when don't Muslims eat Kosher food?" Could you clear that as well - why you feel Muslims do not eat Kosher? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

...why did you change my signature? the Ogress _smash! 01:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

...Oops! ...my bad. Copy/cut-paste type error occurred while addressing you in my comments. Hopefully, fixed now. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Can anyone view this source and tell me which Qur'anic verse they are referring to with seven firmaments and so on? I can't recall any, and if it does exist, it seems to be one of the symbolic numerological verses that the batiniyya have fun with anyway. --Enzuru 04:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam being correctly reprsented?

I wanted to go over a couple things.

• It is ridiculous to say a Muslim cannot follow Nanak. Both branches of Islam, Sunni and Shi'a, emphasize on learning from anyone and everyone, and second, to this day Muslims are the ones going to visit Guru Nanak's shrine, hardly Sikhs, because his grave is in Pakistan. When Kabir stated he was not a Muslim, it was hardly a revolutionary thing, it was the Shi'i Imam Jafar as-Sadiq who said no Shi'a existed when a man told him he knew of no one who would let his brother reach in his pocket and take the sustenance he needed. And Rumi several times stated not to be Muslim, any Muslim who cannot understand why Muslims deny the title should look into the meaning of the Qur'an itself. This is a long heritage in Islam itself, and is hardly used by both religious and secular scholarship to deny any certain person was a Muslim. For some reason, in South Asian literature this has been taken more literally than it has been in Persian or Arabic.
• This article insists on comparing Sikhism with a form of Islam it never even met, that is, a more culturally Arab Islam devoid of batini aspects and Sufism. While this is correct because the article is comparing the religions in general, we need to point out that similarities exist between Sikhism and Sufism where in general Sufism and mainstream shariati Islam may disagree. For example, ideas of heaven and hell, the idea of God being angry (Rumi metaphysicaly explains this), and so forth. Also, many sayings of Guru Nanak which insist on the useless of exoteric (zahir) things with the heart (batini) is hideous, are mirrored in both Sufism and Shi'a Islam.

I will keep this page watched and see how edits go about from this point forward. --Enzuru 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)-