TejS

This is good and all. However, I would be wary of things like this. If what is mentioned did happen, wouldn't there by other sources, such as Meccan and Arabian sources. The Arabs were very good at documenting whatever took place, and they even documented many individuals they personally deemed as "false prophets." I am unable to find any mentioning of this story in any other non-Sikh source. Also the transliteration and translation for the Arabic quote is wrong. It transliterates as "rabiy al'imam hadrat nanak, aklmuh 'ana fiha muslim" meaning that even in Imam Hazrat Nanak, one can see a Muslim. Things like this make me even more doubtful.

Jews, for the most part, have been very supportive of each other. Even the non-religious ones. They work in unison. Ours like to go against each other just for the sake of it.

He is referring to a series of pictures posted on here of Sikh youth in Punjab taking photographs of themselves aiding Muslims pray during Eid, and in one of those photos, a Sikh male is holding a umbrella over a Muslim male praying.

???

I think the Guru Sahib set the message straight regarding the priority of Sikhi or Punjabi when he chose the Panj Pyaare.

I've always viewed India like an ancient United States or any New World country. The future of the West is very much going to be like present-day India, racially mixed people fighting over religion and culture.

I realize that, however, meditation in Sikhism is naam simran, that is not the case in Buddhism.

Exactly. These aren't topics related to Sikhi at all, instead they go against Sikhi, as per being maya. Discussions like the ones OP has initiated only bring the quality of the forum down.

Sikhism and Buddhism are not at all similar. Buddhism is not about the worship of God, it is about meditation leading to nirvana. Sikhism is about worshiping God and then attaining mukti as per God's will.

I'm not sure what the Sikhs of the past sowed that they had to go through the Chota and Vadda Ghallughara?

Who are you describing as indigenous? Dravidians? I hope you realize that the Iranian Neolithic Farmers were Dravidians. They were also "invaders". Or are you talking about the Australoid tribals, who "invaded" from Africa. Which population is indigenous? The Aryans were steppe nomads. Haplogroups from burial sites prove this. The Mongols who are Turkic invaded the Eurasian steppe after descending from the Altai mountains and therefore displacing/mixing in with the the original "Aryan" population - the Uyghurs in China are an example of an Aryan/Mongol mix. The Aryans did not travel through Iran to get to India. The Aryans originated in the the Pontic-Caspian steppe and they descended down from there and reached Central Asia (the Hindu Kush), and they then split off into two distinct populations (the Indo-Aryans and the Iranics). Here is a map outlining all populations entering South Asia (the Yamnaya pastoralists are the Aryans, the Iranian agriculturists are Dravidians and the Indian hunter-gatherers are Australoid tribals):

Thank you. A separate Sikh country is a terrible idea and limits the scope of the religion.

So maybe Punjabi Muslims shouldn't have claimed land which was as equal to Sikhs/Hindus as "Muslim land" in the first place. Do you people know how logic works?

And did that hurt your feelings lol? Our discussion was relevant to what we were discussing, your post just sounds like you're butthurt. We don't need you to come on here and state the obvious for us every time we talk about Muslims.

@YOYO29 I've accepted my own community's failings long back. But that doesn't mean I should stop criticizing the holier-than-thou Muslims? I don't get your purpose here. Every time the forums is having a discussion on here that criticizes or even mentions Muslims, you seem to pop up defending your people. You're not here to learn about Sikhism, you're just here to block any just criticism of Islam.