DON'T GIVE A WRONG IMPRESSION

[Guest guest]

There is a common misconception that Sikhism is a

combination of Islam and Hinduism. This is not true,

Sikhism is not a combination of Islam and Hinduism and

neither does it drive any beliefs from either

religion.

 

Sikhism is an individualistic religion created by God

through Sikh Gurus. For more information, please read

http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/creation.html

 

Sikhism has its own distinctive and individualistic

beliefs. Some of the beliefs might be similar with

other religions but this does not make Sikhism a

combination of other religions.

 

For detailed information on how Sikhism is not a

combination of Islam and Hinduism, please read

http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/combination.html

 

For correct information about Sikhism, please visit

http://www.realsikhism.com

 

What I don’t understand is that why some people say

wrong stuff about Sikhism? What do they achieve by

telling the wrong information about other religions?

This isn’t going to change the reality.

 

Let us promote harmony, peace, mutual understanding

and respect among each other. And not pass your own

judgments about other religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

It is a unique religion in its own right. To my knowledge, it i sthe only religion

which said here on the Guru Granth Sahib will be the Guru and no further lineage

of Gurus beyond ten. Another unique feature is that teh Sikh Gurus gave their

life

for protecting someone else's religion.

Obviously Sikhiism just did not fall from the sky on a fine day. It was a

gradual synthesis over several centuries. It arose in the background of

Hindu-Muslim conflict and the conflicts within Hinduism (caste distinctions,

too many Gods, etc.) Some of the influencing features also include Kabir's

Dohas. he certainly was claimed by both Hindus and Muslims as their own. Guru

nanak was influenced by Kabir.

Sikhism also has the Om revered in Hindu-Jain and Buddhist religions.

There is lot of reference to Hindu epics and quite a bit of vocabulary,

including Guru itself comes from hinduism. One God and no idol worship is

similar to Islam

(Christianity and Judaism). Most people who converted to Sikhism were formerly

Hindus. Thus, Sikhism is rooted quite a bit in Hinduism and to some extent in

islam.

Obviously Sikhism is a seperate religion. That exclusivity is both real and

important for growth and development of the faith. Otherwise, it will be

reduced to the state of a Hindu or a Muslim sect, which is at best counter

productive.

K. Sreekrishna Tatachar

Hindu-Muslim conflict

[Guest guest]

MR.singh, u r asking all to promote undestanding harmony etc., but ur self

want to b e treated as a sikh?Unless one understand study religion along

with hoistory no one can really understand the meaning of isms., as such

there r no cults .One has

to follow and lead peaceful life as thier elders and forfathers

,say(whichever guru they follow)It is for our own interest .

 

In the name of secularism and etc., etc.,all forgot real meaning of indian

by just aping rest of other race.

..

 

 

"G. Singh" <singh337 > wrote:

There is a common misconception that Sikhism is acombination of Islam and

Hinduism. This is not true,Sikhism is not a combination of Islam and Hinduism

andneither does it drive any beliefs from eitherreligion. Sikhism is an

individualistic religion created by Godthrough Sikh Gurus. For more

information, please readhttp://www.realsikhism.com/faq/creation.htmlSikhism has

its own distinctive and individualisticbeliefs. Some of the beliefs might be

similar withother religions but this does not make Sikhism acombination of

other religions.For detailed information on how Sikhism is not acombination of

Islam and Hinduism, please

readhttp://www.realsikhism.com/faq/combination.htmlFor correct information

about Sikhism, please visithttp://www.realsikhism.comWhat I don’t understand is

that why some people

saywrong stuff about Sikhism? What do they achieve bytelling the wrong

information about other religions?This isn’t going to change the reality.Let us

promote harmony, peace, mutual understandingand respect among each other. And

not pass your ownjudgments about other

religions.Friends. Fun. Try the

all-new Messenger.http://messenger./ ------------------------

Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up

ads. Companion Toolbar.Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for

free!http://us.click./L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM--~->

Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go

to:/<*> To from this

group, send an email

to:<*> Your use of is

subject to:ny

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

[Guest guest]

can u explain this sentence pleasetatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

I agree with you that Sikhism is a new religion founded by Guru Nanak, the

foremost Guru of Sikhism. It was continued and enriched by the next 9 Gurus.It

is a unique religion in its own right. To my knowledge, it i sthe only

religionwhich said here on the Guru Granth Sahib will be the Guru and no

further lineage of Gurus beyond ten. Another unique feature is that teh Sikh

Gurus gave their lifefor protecting someone else's religion. Obviously Sikhiism

just did not fall from the sky on a fine day. It was a gradual synthesis over

several centuries. It arose in the background of Hindu-Muslim conflict and the

conflicts within Hinduism (caste distinctions, too many Gods, etc.) Some of the

influencing features also include Kabir's Dohas. he certainly was claimed by

both Hindus

and Muslims as their own. Guru nanak was influenced by Kabir.Sikhism also has

the Om revered in Hindu-Jain and Buddhist religions.There is lot of reference

to Hindu epics and quite a bit of vocabulary, including Guru itself comes from

hinduism. One God and no idol worship is similar to Islam(Christianity and

Judaism). Most people who converted to Sikhism were formerly Hindus. Thus,

Sikhism is rooted quite a bit in Hinduism and to some extent in islam.Obviously

Sikhism is a seperate religion. That exclusivity is both real and important for

growth and development of the faith. Otherwise, it will be reduced to the state

of a Hindu or a Muslim sect, which is at best counter productive. K. Sreekrishna

TatacharHindu-Muslim conflict

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

[Guest guest]

>>Otherwise, it will be reduced to the state of a Hindu or a

Muslim sect, which is at best counter productive.<<<

 

The principles are already in one way or the other in

Hinduism and to some extent in Islam. Basically it would be merged and submerged

in the vast body of Hinduism. This is what happened to every reformation

movement in Hinduism. They ended up becoming another sect of Hinduism

 

Hinduism = Sikhism + more

Hinduism will simply absorb it.

 

It is a shame that the Sikhs did not get a seperate nation (I don't know whetehr

anyone gave them this choice) so that they could fully celebrate their faith

without the mercy of a secular Indian Govt. In this regard, they got the same

deal as Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, and Parses of the sub-continent.

They could have 10 national holidays for the 10 Gurus, have Punjabi as national

language and develop their culture more fully. Only the Muslims managed to get

an Islamic state (unfortunately this was also contaminated by minorities such as

Hindus and Buddhists of Paksitan). I am not sure when would Hindu fundamentalism

(HF)end (by HF I mean not respecting the excusivity of other religions)which has

been the caus eof much sorrow in the past 50 + years.

 

Islam = Sikhism + more of other things, less of Guru

Islam will simply reject it as it has done for Bahai.

 

Hope this makes sense to you.

 

 

K.Sreekrishna

[Guest guest]

So it is not my idea, just my observation !

[Guest guest]

Y can't u send post a message eithe r to sonia or manmohan singh about ur

idea of sikhs having separate they can select nice place in USA OR UK an d

enjoy life hereafter.

 

 

 

 

tatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

>>Otherwise, it will be reduced to the state of a Hindu or a Muslim sect, which

is at best counter productive.<<<The principles are already in one way or the

other inHinduism and to some extent in Islam. Basically it would be merged and

submerged in the vast body of Hinduism. This is what happened to every

reformation movement in Hinduism. They ended up becoming another sect of

HinduismHinduism = Sikhism + moreHinduism will simply absorb it.It is a shame

that the Sikhs did not get a seperate nation (I don't know whetehr anyone gave

them this choice) so that they could fully celebrate their faith without the

mercy of a secular Indian Govt. In this regard, they got the same deal as

Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, and Parses of the sub-continent. They

could have 10 national holidays for the 10 Gurus, have Punjabi as

national language and develop their culture more fully. Only the Muslims managed

to get an Islamic state (unfortunately this was also contaminated by minorities

such as Hindus and Buddhists of Paksitan). I am not sure when would Hindu

fundamentalism (HF)end (by HF I mean not respecting the excusivity of other

religions)which has been the caus eof much sorrow in the past 50 + years.Islam

= Sikhism + more of other things, less of GuruIslam will simply reject it as it

has done for Bahai.Hope this makes sense to you.K.Sreekrishna

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

[Guest guest]

Sikhism is a realization of God and the way of life in

order to meet God. Since every religion has its own

way of life, Sikhism can never be absorbed either in

Hinduism or Sikhism.

 

By the way how do you know whats coming in future?

Your post has no base and no ground. I hope other

Hindus do not think like tatachar By saying

stuff like Sikhism will be absorbed in Hinduism,

people like tatachar break religious wars.

 

tatachar, why can't you be acceptable of

Sikhism? Whats wrong with you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

>

>

>

> tatachar wrote:

>

> >>Otherwise, it will be reduced to the state of a

> Hindu or a

> Muslim sect, which is at best counter productive.<<<

>

> The principles are already in one way or the other

> in

> Hinduism and to some extent in Islam. Basically it

> would be merged and submerged in the vast body of

> Hinduism. This is what happened to every reformation

> movement in Hinduism. They ended up becoming another

> sect of Hinduism

>

> Hinduism = Sikhism + more

> Hinduism will simply absorb it.

>

> It is a shame that the Sikhs did not get a seperate

> nation (I don't know whetehr anyone gave them this

> choice) so that they could fully celebrate their

> faith without the mercy of a secular Indian Govt. In

> this regard, they got the same deal as Hindus,

> Buddhists, Jains, Christians, and Parses of the

> sub-continent. They could have 10 national holidays

> for the 10 Gurus, have Punjabi as national language

> and develop their culture more fully. Only the

> Muslims managed to get an Islamic state

> (unfortunately this was also contaminated by

> minorities such as Hindus and Buddhists of

> Paksitan). I am not sure when would Hindu

> fundamentalism (HF)end (by HF I mean not respecting

> the excusivity of other religions)which has been the

> caus eof much sorrow in the past 50 + years.

>

> Islam = Sikhism + more of other things, less of Guru

> Islam will simply reject it as it has done for

> Bahai.

>

> Hope this makes sense to you.

>

>

> K.Sreekrishna

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to the

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

Sikh fought for a separate country called Khalistan

because of people like you who do not give any

acknowledgement to Sikhism and make stupid comments

like Sikhism will be absorbed in Hinduism.

 

Other fake comments are: Sikhism is a sect of

Hinduism. Comments like this infringe on the

self-esteem of Sikhs.

 

One of many fake comments is written in Indian

Constitution that Sikhs are Hindus with long hair.

 

Informally India is also called Hindustan (the land of

Hindus).

 

There are numerous other reasons that compelled Sikhs

to ask for a separate country.

 

I have no hard feeling for Hindus, as I have many

Hindu friends. But I do meet wrong-headed people like

you who try to draw a wedge between good relations

among Sikhs and Hindus. Usually, I do not respond to

such people but here I see the need so that my good

Hindu friends do not fall in your pit.

 

Only if we acknowledge and respect each other’s

beliefs, there will be no fight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- tatachar wrote:

> As you well know, Sikhs fought for a seperate home

> (Khalistan) for over a

> decade.

> So it is not my idea, just my observation !

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

By people like you, I am refering to tatachar

Just clarifying so that no misunderstanding can occur.

 

 

 

 

 

--- "G. Singh" <singh337 wrote:

> Sikh fought for a separate country called Khalistan

> because of people like you who do not give any

> acknowledgement to Sikhism and make stupid comments

> like Sikhism will be absorbed in Hinduism.

>

> Other fake comments are: Sikhism is a sect of

> Hinduism. Comments like this infringe on the

> self-esteem of Sikhs.

>

> One of many fake comments is written in Indian

> Constitution that Sikhs are Hindus with long hair.

>

> Informally India is also called Hindustan (the land

> of

> Hindus).

>

> There are numerous other reasons that compelled

> Sikhs

> to ask for a separate country.

>

> I have no hard feeling for Hindus, as I have many

> Hindu friends. But I do meet wrong-headed people

> like

> you who try to draw a wedge between good relations

> among Sikhs and Hindus. Usually, I do not respond to

> such people but here I see the need so that my good

> Hindu friends do not fall in your pit.

>

> Only if we acknowledge and respect each other’s

> beliefs, there will be no fight.

>

>

>

--- tatachar wrote:

> > As you well know, Sikhs fought for a seperate home

> > (Khalistan) for over a

> > decade.

> > So it is not my idea, just my observation !

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

> --------------------~-->

> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Companion

> Toolbar.

> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!

>

http://us.click./L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM

>

--~->

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

JAI HIND

 

 

"G. Singh" <singh337 > wrote:

Sikhism is a realization of God and the way of life inorder to meet God. Since

every religion has its ownway of life, Sikhism can never be absorbed either

inHinduism or Sikhism.By the way how do you know whats coming in future?Your

post has no base and no ground. I hope otherHindus do not think like

tatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com By sayingstuff like Sikhism will be absorbed in

Hinduism,people like tatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com break religious wars.tatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com,

why can't you be acceptable ofSikhism? Whats wrong with you?> > > > >

> tatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:> > >>Otherwise, it will be reduced to the state of a>

Hindu or a > Muslim sect, which is at best counter

productive.<<<> > The principles are already in one way or the other> in>

Hinduism and to some extent in Islam. Basically it> would be merged and

submerged in the vast body of> Hinduism. This is what happened to every

reformation> movement in Hinduism. They ended up becoming another> sect of

Hinduism> > Hinduism = Sikhism + more> Hinduism will simply absorb it.> > It is

a shame that the Sikhs did not get a seperate> nation (I don't know whetehr

anyone gave them this> choice) so that they could fully celebrate their> faith

without the mercy of a secular Indian Govt. In> this regard, they got the same

deal as Hindus,> Buddhists, Jains, Christians, and Parses of the>

sub-continent. They could have 10 national holidays> for the 10 Gurus, have

Punjabi as national language> and develop their culture more fully. Only the>

Muslims

managed to get an Islamic state> (unfortunately this was also contaminated by>

minorities such as Hindus and Buddhists of> Paksitan). I am not sure when would

Hindu> fundamentalism (HF)end (by HF I mean not respecting> the excusivity of

other religions)which has been the> caus eof much sorrow in the past 50 +

years.> > Islam = Sikhism + more of other things, less of Guru> Islam will

simply reject it as it has done for> Bahai.> > Hope this makes sense to you.> >

> K.Sreekrishna> > Sponsor> > >

> Links> > To visit your

group on the web, go to:> /> > To

from this group, send an

email to:> > > Your use of

Groups is subject to the> > > > >

> > Friends. Fun. Try the

all-new Messenger Do

you ?Friends. Fun. Try the all-new

Messenger.http://messenger./ yreligion is to

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

[Guest guest]

>>Hindus do not think like tatachar By saying

stuff like Sikhism will be absorbed in Hinduism,<<

 

Looks like you did not understand what I wrote.

I am with you and I would like Sikhs to keep their

uniqueness. If Sikhism did not identify itself as a distinct

religion, which it has rightly done, it would have

just become another sect of Hinduism.

(Not that Hinduism is in need of any more sects).

Also, the moment Sikhs ignore their

unique identity, it will be swept into

the occean of Hinduism.

[Guest guest]

tatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

>>Hindus do not think like tatachar (AT) aol (DOT) com By sayingstuff like Sikhism will be

absorbed in Hinduism,<<Looks like you did not understand what I wrote.I am with

you and I would like Sikhs to keep their uniqueness. If Sikhism did not identify

itself as a distinctreligion, which it has rightly done, it would havejust

become another sect of Hinduism.(Not that Hinduism is in need of any more

sects).Also, the moment Sikhs ignore theirunique identity, it will be swept

into the occean of Hinduism.

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

[Guest guest]

Again looks like You didn't seem to understand what I wrote.

Actually, I am in agreement with you. Hindus have an eternal problem of

recognizing the uniqueness of other religions.

 

Did I say, it was wrong for Sikhs to fight for seperate home land? If I had any

say, I support that Sikhs should have been given the choice of seperate home

land.

 

I hinted the sacrifice of Sikh gurus in my very first mail. Because you have

problem of comprehension of my writing style, I will elaborate:

To my knowledge, it is only Sikhs who have given their life to defend another

faith (read Hinduism).

They protected Hinduism against Islam, at a stage when Hindus were pretty much

marginalized and subdued by Islamic rulers.

I look at Sikh scarifice with gratitude. it is hard to express that without

looking like I am patronizing Sikhs.

 

Please try to understand what is said before you comment.

I respect anyone who is worthy of my respect. That is nothing to do with their

nationality, ethnicity, religion or race.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your comments. I am glad you realize the

reality. Sorry for misunderstanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- tatachar wrote:

> Again looks like You didn't seem to understand what

> I wrote.

> Actually, I am in agreement with you. Hindus have an

> eternal problem of recognizing the uniqueness of

> other religions.

>

> Did I say, it was wrong for Sikhs to fight for

> seperate home land? If I had any say, I support that

> Sikhs should have been given the choice of seperate

> home land.

>

> I hinted the sacrifice of Sikh gurus in my very

> first mail. Because you have problem of

> comprehension of my writing style, I will elaborate:

>

> To my knowledge, it is only Sikhs who have given

> their life to defend another faith (read Hinduism).

> They protected Hinduism against Islam, at a stage

> when Hindus were pretty much marginalized and

> subdued by Islamic rulers.

> I look at Sikh scarifice with gratitude. it is hard

> to express that without looking like I am

> patronizing Sikhs.

>

> Please try to understand what is said before you

> comment.

> I respect anyone who is worthy of my respect. That

> is nothing to do with their nationality, ethnicity,

> religion or race.

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

Sorry to rake up the old message, but people seem to have forgotten

Marathas, Vijayanagara empire and hindu warriors resisting Islam's

advance into India. The idea that "only" sikhs fought islamic

maruaders is a myth, propagated in India to further weaken and

eliminate already weak Kshatriya class. Sikhs did contribute quite a

lot, not to take anything away from Sikhs.

 

Read this article as well

 

http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside.asp?

cat_name=why&sid=61&count1=0&cid=382

 

Regaring hindu resistance, please read and learn hindus' and India's

authentic history and dump the history taught to Indians by our

white masters and missionaries.

 

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhrmi

 

Thank you and regards

 

 

, tatachar@a... wrote:

> Again looks like You didn't seem to understand what I wrote.

> Actually, I am in agreement with you. Hindus have an eternal

problem of recognizing the uniqueness of other religions.

>

> Did I say, it was wrong for Sikhs to fight for seperate home land?

If I had any say, I support that Sikhs should have been given the

choice of seperate home land.

>

> I hinted the sacrifice of Sikh gurus in my very first mail.

Because you have problem of comprehension of my writing style, I

will elaborate:

> To my knowledge, it is only Sikhs who have given their life to

defend another faith (read Hinduism).

> They protected Hinduism against Islam, at a stage when Hindus were

pretty much marginalized and subdued by Islamic rulers.

> I look at Sikh scarifice with gratitude. it is hard to express

that without looking like I am patronizing Sikhs.

>

> Please try to understand what is said before you comment.

> I respect anyone who is worthy of my respect. That is nothing to

do with their nationality, ethnicity, religion or race.