Talk:Islam and Sikhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Sikhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 



Untitled[edit]

IT SAYS THAT CERTAIN MUSLIMS REGARD GURU NANAK AS MUSLIM AND SHOWS ARGUEMENTS FOR IT, PLEASE CAN YOU EITHER REMOVE THOSE POINTS AS THERE IS BIAS, OR ADD IN THIS POINT, IN WHICH GURU NANAK SAID THEMSELVES IN GURU GRANTH SAHIB : 'I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.' SOURCE: http://www.searchsikhism.com/islam2.html Otherwise i find this article very offensive, by claiming Guru Nanak is muslim you are insulting the Fifth largest religion Sikhism, its like me claiming Mohammed was a pagan Hindu.

Furthermore, Jhatka meat is NOT written in Sikhism, its a cultural cuisine, so please re-phrase or delete the part about Jhatka meat being compulsary for Sikhs to eat. Jhatka is a ritual meat, and hence its a contradiction to no Kutha meat. Please sort it out, right now there is a large bias towards Islam on this page. Not to mention, The picture is a Muslim sign, and there is no Sikh symbols, real bias. RACISM!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.109.124 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please prove reincarnation & karma......[edit]

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.

Use four tilde ~~~~ to sign your posts. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant Insults to Islam[edit]

& 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

Use four tilde ~~~~ to sign your posts. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues in current version[edit]

  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)


The article claims the wounds inflicted on Guru Gobind Singh-ji is what had led to there apparent 'death'. The fact of the matter is that there body was never found, and in Sikh teachings there are stories that occured after the claimed passing of the Guru (simliar to Jesus's story). Therefore could you please edit that as it is unknown what happened to the Guru after they went Hazoor Sahib and the curtains were closed (nobody could see behind those curtains). Something along the lines off 'the Guru had reportadly passed away although there are accounts from Namdhari Sikhs and other sects of Sikhs of the Guru after these events' - evidence: http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/research/Guru%20Death/Death%20of%20GGS.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.108.155 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the information is biased against Islam[edit]

Imbabalnced, hence I will add Muslim perspective on Sikh accounts of Mecca 86.171.101.59 (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please dont delete POV flags[edit]

There is too much nonsense in this article..

First we hear stories about a man fighting without his head, then we hear stupid stories that the Kabba was juming here and there, have some respect and stop these insults. Khari Sharif (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As ridiculous as an illiterate man being asked by God to read something? Please stop getting personal Khari. If it is referenced it stays. Regards --Sikh-History 08:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

i litterally feel sorry for the person who has added these illogical stories in this article. on one hand sikhs are deny BLINDED rituals and here this blinded wisdom is dipicted in many illogical stories. sikh people nowadays are educated, i am sure they would reject these illogical stories esp about kaba.

Recent pov editing by Ibn abdul hassan without references[edit]

This is to the IP address who has repeatedly reinstated Ibn abdul hassan's edits here, here and here. If you look on the top of the talk page you will see a large banner, reproduced below,

which says to supply citations when adding information, which you didn't do. The IP address also added information that was not a part of the original citation. If your view is correct then there is no need to insert misleading information, just provide credible citations for your view.

Also to the claim I am engaged in disruptive editing, Ibn abdul hassan added a slew of pov edits which were reverted by a user with a proper justification here, afterwards the IP user, who I suspect is a WP:SOCK, restored the unsourced edits and I restored the page to its original state. I suspect issuing me with warnings of vandalism is an attempt at bullying. To the IP user, read up on WP:DISRUPT and see how you fit the bill

  • their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive

which I think was Ibn abdul hassans intention--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It turns out User:Ibn abdul hassan was using sockpuppet IP addresses to revert edits he didn't agree with Here is the sockpuppet investigation--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Undone POV edits by Prophetoftruth85[edit]

You were warned by another user here but you removed the warning(s)

here

This article begins by stating that Prophet Mohammed is the Seal of the Prophets this is considered heretic or the view by the Ahmadiyya community which is not representative of mainstream Islam community. According to the Wikipedia article, but more importantly the Islamic community Prophet is the LAST & FINAL PROPHET and should be described as such in the correct manner, without Sikh or any other bias see here on Prophet Mohammed Ibn abdul hassan (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. the warning was unwarranted so I removed it
  2. you still haven't acknowledged that you are the one adding things without citations and pushing your point of view
  3. read seal of the prophets it explicitly states "Muslims traditionally interpret this verse as meaning that Muhammad was the last prophet, whereas other small minority groups such as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community hold an entirely distinct view" so I don't understand why you are getting so excited about that.

Look, I don't think I am exhibiting a bias, just trying to keep the article encyclopedic. I don't like that you added some things that weren't stated in the citations. In the future, when you make claims, find citations to verify them because simply adding your view to an existing citation when its not in the reference is unencyclopedic--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, yes, Mohammad was called the "Seal of the Prophets" not only does profitoftruth's referenced article support this, but I also remember it from some history classes.Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It turns out User:Ibn abdul hassan was using sockpuppet IP addresses to revert edits he didn't agree with Here is the sockpuppet investigation--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


who also introduced the element of militancy into Sikhism. They claim that Guru Gobind Singh had political problems with the Moghuls (who were Muslims) some of whom at times unfairl[edit]

Guru Gobind Singh Ji introdued Pure Khalsa army against cruality of Mogul.

99.234.160.178 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not stricly true. The military aspect has been there right from Nanak through to Gobind Singh. If you read some of what Nanak says, it could be interpreted as quite militant. Many of the battles were fought with Hindu Hill Raja's as well as the MUghals. Thanks --SH 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Marking as answered --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Bhai Mardana[edit]

I request that Bhai Mardana Ji be changed to Bhai Mardana, since his article is present at the latter. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by redirect. — Bility (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2012[edit]

I have found a mistake in the writing, there is false information written. Sikhs aren't allowed to have any type of meat at all. Slaughter is forbidden in sikhism Jarnail Singh Atwal Ji (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's referenced so it stays SH 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012[edit]

The Sikhs abolished Mughal rule in the whole province in one stroke and where the first army in history to destroy the Mughal Empire and conquer Afghanistan,[1] which lead to the creation of a Sikh Empire in the late-17th century.

Where should be were.

75.1.99.153 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"martial race theory" confirmed?[edit]

Sorry, I'm not a normal editor of any sort, so I'm probably saying this wrong.

"...This was under the Martial Race Theory that Sikhs were born warriors, which proved true as the Sikhs were awarded 14 Victoria Crosses..."

While that sounds awesome and all, this does state explicitly that the "Martial Race Theory" "proved true". There is probably a better way to say that there was a martial race theory, it was why the British favored Sikhs, and the Sikhs performed well, without being wildly and ludicrously racist, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.247.166 (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2013[edit]

Grammar correction - Please remove 2nd instance of the word "was" from the following sentence in the third paragraph of this article:

"Jahangir, the fourth Mughal Emperor, was angered by the number of Muslims who converted to Sikhism so had Guru Arjan Dev was imprisoned in Gwalior fort.[2] and then later boiled alive."

Cigir (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done and change the period after fort to a comma. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice Pro-Sikh article you got here.[edit]

Really makes Sikhism sound like the greatest religion ever, that has never done anything wrong. I think we should have more pro-Sikh articles and more anti-Islam ones, it is only fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.127.102 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


See now I support a more nuetral article that just mentions what scholars and religious texts state about each other but this makes it impossible to work through people, we need to stop lobbing insults and remarks randomly. In reference to this specifically Religion itself cannot do anything 'wrong' as it is a concept or grouping of ideas in comparison to people who can commit acts in the name of a religion then yes there have been people who have done things wrong in the name of Sikhism depending on what society thinks is wrong but I refrence killing innocents and terrorism as two wrong things, as for the sarcasm I have read a update to another article stating similar things from the same i[ address but wish to state it does little help to the article or improving it rather than just making remarks that an academic style article should not posses especially if we wish readers to read this and not think "wow these religious idiots are bickering as to whether its pro islam or pro sikhism and making fun of each other, aren't religious people stupid" because that is how much of this talk page comes across if Sikhs and Muslims think this is the way the Gurus or the Prophet (peace be upon him) would discuss each other or debate, we thus need to work constructively to improve the article SandeepSinghToor (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ J. S. Grewal (1998). The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 0-521-63764-3.